Does the China-Korea Free Trade Area Promote the Green Total Factor Productivity of China’s Manufacturing Industry?

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 27-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuan-Kuo Liu ◽  
Fei-Fei Cao ◽  
Bolayog Dennis
2021 ◽  
pp. 223386592110248
Author(s):  
Ga Eun Lee ◽  
Innwon Park

This paper empirically analyzes the effectiveness of the ASEAN–Korea Free Trade Area (AKFTA) focusing on the ex-post trade creation and diversion effects with controlling related intra-bloc and extra-bloc regional trade agreements (RTAs) and economic characteristics of interconnected economies. The quantitative analysis applies a gravity model regression analysis by specifying standard pooled ordinary least squares and fixed effects regression models. We observe that the AKFTA turned out to be more favorable for Korea in terms of trade balance with ASEAN. We find that the AKFTA is a desirable trade creating RTA strongly driven by intra-bloc export activities between members and does not divert but generates more export to and import from non-members. Thus, we strongly support that the AKFTA facilitates trade between intra-bloc members and their trade with extra-bloc non-members as well. Besides which, we find that the trade creation effects of the AKFTA are industry-specific and sector-specific. For the manufacturing industry, the trade creation effects of the AKFTA are generated by both intra-bloc and extra-bloc import activity but not from extra-bloc export activity. However, for the services industry, all the intra-bloc and extra-bloc export and import activities contribute to the trade creation effects. Interestingly, we find that the trade creation effects of the manufacturing industry are smaller than those of the services industry. Considering restrictive service schedules of specific commitments in the AKFTA agreement on trade-in services compared to trade-in goods provisions, rearranging the trade-in services provisions is necessary to generate more trade gains in the future.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 180-204
Author(s):  
Lawrence Ngobeni ◽  
Babatunde Fagbayibo

Abstract In 2016, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) amended Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (FIP) in order to remove investor access to international arbitration or Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS). The recent formation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Agreement (T-FTA) are factors that will likely curtail SADC’s ability to regulate foreign investments. Both AfCFTA and T-FTA are supposed to have their own investment protocols. This means that SADC faces the loss of regulatory authority over foreign investments. The recent formation of the Pan African Investment Code (PAIC) has shown that some African Union (AU) Member States want to provide ISDS for their investors, while others including SADC Members States do not. This article intends to evaluate the lessons SADC can learn from other jurisdictions in terms of the effective regulation of ISDS.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document